Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Author(s): Zou Yi, Feng Jinchao, Xue Dayuan, Sang Weiguo and Jan C. Axmacher
Source: Journal of Resources and Ecology, 3(2):174-182. 2012.
Published By: Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of
Sciences
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2012.02.010
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2012.02.010
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological,
and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books
published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOnes Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial
inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions,
research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
June, 2012 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.3 No.2
J. Resour. Ecol. 2012 3 (2) 174-182
3FQPSU
DOI:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2012.02.010
www.jorae.cn
ZOU Yi1*, FENG Jinchao2, XUE Dayuan2, SANG Weiguo3 and Jan C. AXMACHER1
Abstract: Terrestrial arthropods are extremely important ecosystem components. The choice of
best approaches to collect the wide range of terrestrial arthropods has been a topic of long-lasting
debates. This article provides a brief overview of common sampling methods for terrestrial arthropod
assemblages. We divide sampling methods into three main categories: passive sampling methods without
any activity density bias, passive sampling methods with an activity density bias, and active sampling
methods with inherent activity density and often further species-dependent biases, discussing their
individual advantages and shortcomings as basis for biodiversity studies and pest control management.
The selection of the optimal sampling methods depends strongly on the purpose of individual studies and
the ecology and behavior of the arthropod groups targeted. A combination of different suitable methods is
highly recommended in many cases.
1 Introduction light traps for moths and many other nocturnal insects, and
Terrestrial arthropods are extremely important ecosystem window traps for Staphylinidae and Scarabaeidae (Bowden
components. They exert control over the stability and and Church 1973; Kitching et al. 2001). The capture
functioning of ecosystems, are key players in nutrient cycling effectiveness of sampling methods and their improvements
and also create substantial economic value via ecosystem are continually studied (Gressitt and Gressitt 1962; Shepard
services such as pollination (Pyle et al. 1981). Moreover, et al. 1974; Luff 1975; Peck and Davies 1980; Masner and
terrestrial arthropods are by far the most diverse group of Goulet 1981; Oliver and Beattie 1996; Campos et al. 2000;
organisms on our planet, as insects alone account for an Axmacher and Fiedler 2004; Sabu and Shiju 2010).
estimated 57% of all species living on our planet (Millennium Some papers refer to active and passive sampling
Ecosystem Assessment 2005). as methods with or without human power when collecting
The best approach to collect the wide range of terrestrial specimens (e.g. Gullan and Cranston 2005). Here, active
arthropods has been a topic of long-lasting debates and passive sampling is used in a slightly different way,
(Greenslade and Greenslade 1964; Townes 1972; Shepard distinguishing if an attractant is used to sample specimens or
et al. 1974; Basset 1988; Coddington et al. 1991; Brehm not. Sampling methods are overall divided into three different
and Axmacher 2006). When selecting an appropriate categories: passive sampling methods without any activity
sampling method, one should closely consider the design density bias, for example collection of leaf litter or soil
of the respective sampling tools and their costs, as well as samples, sweep netting and knockdown by chemical fogging;
the ecological traits and habitat conditions of the target taxa passive sampling methods with an activity density bias,
(Gullan and Cranston 2005). Specific sampling methods for example pitfall traps, sticky traps, suction traps, Malaise
are indeed needed to sample different arthropod taxa. For WUDSVDQGZLQGRZWUDSVDQGQDOO\DFWLYHVDPSOLQJPHWKRGV
example, pitfall traps are highly useful for ground-dwelling with inherent activity density bias. All respective methods
beetles and ants, malaise traps for flies or parasitic wasps, use an additional attractant that often adds an additional
such as white sheets spread behind light sources which are are sensitive to rainfall and thereby need to be regularly
suitable for selective, manual collection, and automatic light checked.
traps. In the case of light towers, insects are collected in a
2.3.3 Bait traps
jar equipped with a chemical to stun and kill the specimens
after they land on the surface of the light tower. Alternative The term bait trap refers to a wide range of active taps
setups use a simple white sheet placed behind the light usually using potential food items as attractants and can be
source. In automatic trap, insects are sampled after they are combined with other trapping methods. While traditional
attracted towards transparent vanes, sliding down through mouse-traps are an examples for bait traps used in mammal
a funnel where killing agents can be applied (Brehm and catches, baited traps are also commonly used in arthropod
Axmacher 2006). surveys. Examples of bait range from syrup used in pitfall
The capture rates of light traps are highly variable and traps as an effective attractant for ants (Greenslade and
affected by a wide array of factors relating to the trap design Greenslade 1971) to vinegar-sugar alcohol-water mixtures
and environmental conditions. Sampling success is affected as effective bait for carabids (Yu et al. 2006) in pitfall traps.
for example by the above-ground height of the light source White bread is attractive food for cockroach sampling
and the type of trap illumination (Baker and Sadovy 1978; (Ballard and Gold 1982) and rotting bananas, molasses and
Bowden 1982), and attraction also varies between species UXPDUHXVHGLQDWWUDFWLQJEXWWHULHV+XJKHVet al. 1998).
(Bowden 1982). The timing of light traps should also Bait traps are effective sampling methods for live catches
consider effects of background illumination by moonlight of arthropods. The selection of food source is of crucial
or anthropogenic light sources (Bowden and Church 1973; importance, so basic knowledge of feeding habits is a
Morton et al. 1981; Bowden 1982; Nag and Nath 1991; prerequisite to use this method.
Nowinszky 2004). Light traps are highly effective and can
2.3.4 Pheromone traps
preserve specimen in relatively good state, which is very
important for sampling relatively frail specimens such as Pheromones are semiochemicals released by species that
small moths. The disadvantages of light traps include their can cause certain behavioural or physiological responses
limitation to nocturnal species, and difficulties in direct of other individuals. Pheromone traps are widely used
comparisons of quantitative data due to differences in in monitoring arthropods population for pest control.
light attraction between taxa (Basset 1988). Traps are also Sex pheromones and aggregating pheromones are the
often heavy and inconvenient to carry in remote areas. In main two types of pheromones used in these traps. Sex
addition, specimen can become damaged by large, active pheromones are semiochemicals that sexually maturity
species or when large sample sizes are caught in the traps specimens produce to attract the opposite sex for mating
(personal experience). while aggregating pheromones are produced by species to
induce gathering for feeding or attack. Pheromone traps
2.3.2 Pan traps
are high selective for certain species and often gender, and
Pan traps, also referred to as water traps, show many they are widely used in the trapping of Lepidoptera and
similarities to pitfall traps, but are generally operated above Coleoptera (e.g. Bell et al. 1972; Riedl et al. 1976; Mullen
the soil surface (Cane et al. 2000). Pan traps are plastic 1992; Turchin and Odendaal 1996; Walker et al. 2003).
bowls commonly filled with water, with a few drops of Pheromone traps are an inexpensive and easily implemented
dishwasher detergent added to break the surface tension. approach in many cases, although the initial production of
Target insects will sink into the water when they land VSHFLFSKHURPRQHVFDQEHH[SHQVLYHDQGWLPHFRQVXPLQJ
on the surface. Different colours can again significantly They are usually weather sensitive and often require
affect the capture rate for different arthropod taxa. For substantial knowledge of the target species (Weinzierl et al.
example, yellow pans are used in studies of diverse groups 2006).
of pollinators (Leong and Thorp 1999; Kitching et al.
2001), while blue pan traps are more effective in catching 3 Comparisons
Stephanidae in comparison to yellow ones (Aguiar and As demonstrated above, different sampling methods need
Sharkov 1997) and red pans are attractive for Amphicoma to be used for different arthropod taxa, with appropriate
beetles (Dafni et al. 1990) while white is more attractive sampling techniques being key for effective arthropod
than yellow for many dipterans (Disney et al. 1982). monitoring, pest control and biodiversity research. For
Responses to traps differ between sexes (Leong and Thorp sampling methods with an inherent activity density bias
1999), which needs to be taken into consideration during which are therefore depended on both population densities
general surveys. and activity patterns of individual species, it is important
Pan traps are effective in capturing a wide range of insect to acknowledge that respective samples will not normally
taxa such as flower-visiting flies and skippers, and they reflect the species prevailing density, and short-term
are very useful to record bee species (Leong and Thorp shifts for example in weather conditions can alter results
1999; Cane et al. 2000; Roulston et al. 2007). Pan traps substantially. In biodiversity studies, we recommended
are a cheap and easily transportable sampling tool. They to use diversity indices which are robust for resulting
ZOU Yi, et al.: A Comparison of Terrestrial Arthropod Sampling Methods 179
Table 1 Comparisons among different terrestrial arthropods sampling methods.
Attractant Activity
Sampling
(passive/ density Targets Advantages Limitations
method
active) bias (+/-)
Soil extraction Passive - Soil microarthropods Inexpensive Samples need to be processed quickly
Leaf litter Passive - Ground-dwelling Inexpensive Samples need to be processed quickly;
collection microarthropods large amounts of litter needed
Netting Passive - Flying arthropods, arthropods Inexpensive; Labourious
sitting in vegetation non-intrusive
Canopy Passive - Arboreal arthropods Time effective; Weather sensitive; non-repeatable
fogging highly productive
Pitfall traps Passive + Ground-dwelling arthropods Inexpensive By catch of mammals, amphibians and slugs;
predation by birds and predatory insects
Sticky traps Passive + Flying arthropods Inexpensive 6SHFLPHQDUHGLIFXOWWRH[WUDFWIURP
the sampling device
Suction traps Passive + Aerial and ground-dwelling Highly effective ([SHQVLYHGLIFXOWWRWUDQVSRUW
arthropods
Malaise traps Passive + Flying arthropods Inexpensive Low trapping effectiveness;
easily damaged by wind
Window traps Passive + Flying arthropods Easily standardized; Easily damaged by wind,
replicable; highly effective VPDOOLJKWLQWHUFHSWLRQDUHD
Light traps Active + Nocturnal arthropods Highly effective Expensive, potential damage
of specimen
Pan traps Active + Flower-visiting arthropods Inexpensive Sensitive to rainfall
Bait traps Active + 6SHFLFJURXSVRUVSHFLHV Highly effective %DLWFDQEHGLIFXOWWRKDQGOH
Pheromone Active + 6SHFLFJURXSVRUVSHFLHV Highly effective Weather sensitive; need substantial
traps knowledge of the target species
in their behaviour and ecological niche. For example, at equal light sources: A comparison of catches from Mt. Kilimanjaro.
pitfall traps are considered to be a standard method for the Journal of the Lepidopterists Society, 58: 196-202.
Axmacher J C, G Holtmann, L Scheuermann, G Brehm, K Mller-
sampling of carabids (Rainio and Niemel 2003), but they Hohenstein and K Fiedler. 2004a. Diversity of geometrid moths
are strongly biased towards ground-dwelling ground beetles (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) along an Afrotropical elevational rainforest
with a large body-size, so that complementary catches transect. Diversity and Distributions, 10: 293-302.
with light towers can generate a much better impression Axmacher J C, H Tnte, M Schrumpf, et al. 2004b. Diverging diversity
of the overall assemblage structure and species richness patterns of vascular plants and geometrid moths during forest
regeneration on Mt Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Journal of Biogeography, 31:
of a habitat (Liu et al. 2007). To record ground-dwelling 895-904.
carabids with a small body size (e.g. cryptozoic beetles) Baars M A. 1979. Catches in pitfall traps in relation to mean densities of
that are rarely recorded in pitfall traps (Olson 1994), leaf carabid beetles. Oecologia, 41: 25-46.
litter collecting is also very useful. In addition, window trap Baker R R and Y Sadovy. 1978. The distance and nature of the light-trap
can catch day-flying carabids (e.g. Amara spp.). Further response of moths. Nature, 276: 818-820.
%DOODUG-%DQG5(*ROG7KHHIIHFWRIVHOHFWHGEDLWVRQWKHHIFDF\
combinations can further enhance sampling success, for of a sticky trap in the evaluation of German cockroach populations.
example with light towers placed behind window traps, Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 51: 86-90.
combining as a window-light trap, ideal in sampling of a Bartholomew C S and D Prowell. 2005. Pan compared to malaise trapping
YHU\ZLGHUDQJHRI\LQJEHHWOHWD[D+XL]HQ for bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in a longleaf pine savanna. Journal of
Among all sampling methods mentioned above, canopy the Kansas Entomological Society, 78: 390-392.
Basset Y. 1988. A composite interception trap for sampling arthropods in
fogging, sticky traps, window traps and pan traps usually tree canopies. Australian Journal of Entomology, 27: 213-219.
kill specimen, and therefore not suitable for monitoring rare Basset Y, N D Springate, H P Aberlenc and G Delvare. 1997. A review of
species. Other methods such as pitfall traps and Malaise methods for sampling arthropods in tree canopies. Canopy Arthropods,
traps can keep specimen alive if no killing solution is added 35: 2752.
in the collection containers. In addition, pitfall traps, sticky Bell W J, C Parsons and E A Martinko. 1972. Cockroach aggregation
pheromones: analysis of aggregation tendency and species specificity
traps, Malaise traps, window traps and pan traps are easily (Orthoptera: Blattidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 45:
used in the long-term continuously monitoring, while others 414-421.
such as soil extraction, leaf litter collection, netting and %RLWHDX*(IFLHQF\RILJKWLQWHUFHSWLRQWUDSVIRUDGXOW&RORUDGR
canopy fogging are generally used for selecting certain potato beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Economic
samples and could be influenced by collectors skills. Entomology, 93: 630-635.
Bouget C, H Brustel, A Brin and T Noblecourt. 2008. Sampling saproxylic
Suction traps and light traps can also be used in long-term beetles with window flight traps: methodological insights. Revue
continuously monitoring if proper electric power can be dEcologie la Terre et la Vie, 10: 21-32.
provided. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that some Bowden J. 1982. An analysis of factors affecting catches of insects in light-
methods like canopy fogging can be highly detrimental traps. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 72: 535-556.
to the arthropod populations within the study area and %RZGHQ-DQG%0&KXUFK7KHLQXHQFHRIPRRQOLJKWRQFDWFKHVRI
insects in light-traps in Africa. Part II. The effect of moon phase on light-
potentially even in areas in their vicinity, indiscriminately trap catches. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 63: 129-142.
killing a wide range of species. These techniques should Brehm G and J C Axmacher. 2006. A comparison of manual and automatic
therefore be avoided in sensitive habitats known to harbour moth sampling methods (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae, Geometridae) in a rain
threatened species. forest in Costa Rica. Environmental Entomology, 35: 757-764.
In conclusion, how to select a proper sampling method Brehm G, D Sssenbach and K Fiedler. 2003. Unique elevational diversity
patterns of geometrid moths in an Andean montane rainforest. Ecography,
depends on the sampling purpose. The basic knowledge 26: 456-466.
of target arthropods habits is required before starting Brdsgaard H F. 1989. Coloured sticky traps for Frankliniella occidentalis
sampling. None of a single method is panacea for collecting (Pergande)(Thysanoptera, Thripidae) in glasshouses. Journal of Applied
a wide range of arthropod taxa. Therefore, a good Entomology, 107: 136-140.
combination of different methods is highly recommended Campos W G, D B S Pereira and J H Schoereder. 2000. Comparison of the
HIFLHQF\RILJKWLQWHUFHSWLRQWUDSPRGHOVIRUVDPSOLQJ+\PHQRSWHUD
for ecological surveys. and other insects. Anais da Sociedade Entomolgica do Brasil, 29: 381-
389.
References Cane J H, R L Minckley and L J Kervin. 2000. Sampling bees (Hymenoptera:
Adis J, Y Basset, A Floren, P M Hammond and K E Linsenmair. Apiformes) for pollinator community studies: pitfalls of pan-trapping.
1998. Canopy fogging of an overstory tree-recommendations for Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 73: 225-231.
standardization. Ecotropica, 4: 93-97. Carrel J E. 2002. A novel aerial-interception trap for arthropod sampling.
Allison A, G A Samuelson and S E Miller. 1993. Patterns of beetle species Florida Entomologist, 85: 656-657.
diversity in New Guinea rain forest as revealed by canopy fogging: Chapman J A and J M Kinghorn. 1955. Window flight traps for insects.
SUHOLPLQDU\QGLQJVSelbyana, 14: 16-20. Canadian Entomologist, 87: 46-47.
Aguiar A P and A Sharkov. 1997. Blue pan traps as a potential method Coddington J A, C E Griswold, D S Davila, E Penaranda and S F Larcher.
for collecting Stephanidae (Hymenoptera). Journal of Hymenoptera 1991. Designing and testing sampling protocols to estimate biodiversity
Research, 6: 422-423. in tropical ecosystems. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press.
Atakan E and R Canhilal. 2004. Evaluation of yellow sticky traps at various Crossley D A Jr. and M P Hoglund. 1962. A litter-bag method for the study
heights for monitoring cotton insect pests. Journal of Agricultural Urban of microarthropods inhabiting leaf litter. Ecology, 43: 571-573.
Entomology, 21: 15-24. Dafni A, P Bernhardt, A Shmida, Y Ivri and S Greenbaum. 1990. Red bowl-
Axmacher J C and K Fiedler. 2004. Manual versus automatic moth sampling VKDSHGRZHUVFRQYHUJHQFHIRUEHHWOHSROOLQDWLRQLQWKH0HGLWHUUDQHDQ
ZOU Yi, et al.: A Comparison of Terrestrial Arthropod Sampling Methods 181
region. Israel Journal of Botany, 39: 81-92. Oecologia, 19: 345-357.
Darling D C and L Packer. 1988. Effectiveness of Malaise traps in collecting Macfadyen A. 1955. A comparison of methods for extracting soil arthropods.
Hymenoptera: The influence of trap design, mesh size, and location. In: Kevan D K McE. (ed.). Soil zoology. London: Butterworths, 315332.
Canadian Entomologist, 120: 787-796. Macfadyen A. 1961. Improved funnel-type extractors for soil arthropods.
Dietrick E, E Schlinger and M Garber. 1960. Vacuum cleaner principle The Journal of Animal Ecology, 30: 171-184.
DSSOLHGLQVDPSOLQJLQVHFWSRSXODWLRQVLQDOIDOIDHOGVE\QHZPDFKLQH Mader H J, C Schell and P Kornacker. 1990. Linear barriers to arthropod
method. California Agriculture, 14: 9-11. movements in the landscape. Biological Conservation, 54, 209-222.
Disney R H L and Y Z Erzinclioglu. 1982. Collecting methods and the Malaise R. 1937. A new insect-trap. Entomologisk Tidskrift, 38, 148-160.
adequacy of attempted fauna surveys, with reference to the Diptera. Field 0DUVWRQ15HFHQWPRGLFDWLRQVLQWKHGHVLJQRI0DODLVHLQVHFWWUDSV
Studies, 5: 607-621. with a summary of the insects represented in collections. Journal of the
Evans E W, R A Rogers and D J Opfermann. 1983. Sampling grasshoppers Kansas Entomological Society, 38:154-162.
(Orthoptera: Acrididae) on burned and unburned tallgrass prairie: night 0DVQHU/DQG+*RXOHW$QHZPRGHORILJKWLQWHUFHSWLRQIRUVRPH
trapping vs. sweeping. Environmental Entomology, 12: 1449-1454. hymenopterous insects. Entomological News, 92: 199-202.
Erwin T L. 1983. Tropical forest canopies: the last biotic frontier. Bulletin of Midgarden D G, R R Youngman and S J Fleischer. 1993. Spatial analysis
the ESA, 29: 14-20. of counts of western com rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) adults
*LOOHVSLHO'5DQG569HUQRQ]7UDSFDWFKRIZHVWHUQRZHUWKULSV on yellow sticky traps in corn: Geostatistics and dispersion indices.
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) as affected by color and height of sticky traps Environmental Entomology, 22: 1124-1133.
in mature greenhouse cucumber crops. Journal of Economic Entomology, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-
83: 971-975. being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources
Greenslade P and P J M Greenslade. 1971. The use of baits and preservatives Institute.
in pitfall traps. Australian Journal of Entomology, 10: 253-260. Mitchell B. 1963. Ecology of two carabid beetles, Bembidion lampros
Greenslade P J M. 1964. Pitfall trapping as a method for studying (Herbst) and Trechus quadristriatus (Schrank). The Journal of Animal
populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). The Journal of Animal Ecology, Ecology, 32: 377-392.
33: 301-310. Morton R, L D Tuart and K G Wardhaugh. 1981. The analysis and
Gressitt J L and M K Gressitt. 1962. An improved Malaise Trap. Pacific standardisation of light-trap catches of Heliothis armiger (Hbner)
Insects, 4: 87-90. and H. punctiger Wallengren (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Bulletin of
Gullan P J and P S Cranston. 2005. The insects: an outline of entomology. Entomological Research, 71: 207-225.
Chapter 17, Methods in entomology: collecting preservation, cuation, and Mullen M A. 1992. Development of a pheromone trap for monitoring
LQGHQWLFDWLRQ+RERNHQ1-:LOH\%ODFNZHOO Tribolium castaneum. Journal of Stored Products Research, 28: 245-249.
Haniotakis G, M Kozyrakis, T Fitsakis and A Antonidakj. 1991. An Nag A and P Nath. 1991. Effect of moon light and lunar periodicity on the
effective mass trapping method for the control of Dacus oleae (Diptera: light trap catches of cutworm Agrotis ipsilon (Hufn.) moths. Journal of
Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 84: 564-569. Applied Entomology, 111: 358-360.
Harris E J, S Nakagawa and T Urago. 1971. Sticky traps for detection and 1RZLQV]N\/1RFWXUQDOLOOXPLQDWLRQDQGQLJKW\LQJLQVHFWVApplied
survey of three tephritids. Journal of Economic Entomology, 64: 62-65. Ecology and Environmental Research, 2: 17-52.
Hinds W T and W H Rickard. 1973. Correlations between climatological Oliver I and A J Beattie. 1996. Designing a cost-effective invertebrate
XFWXDWLRQVDQGDSRSXODWLRQRIPhilolithus densicollis (Horn)(Coleoptera: survey: A test of methods for rapid assessment of biodiversity. Ecological
Tenebrionidae). The Journal of Animal Ecology, 42: 341-351. Applications, 6: 594-607.
Holyoak M, V Jarosik and I Novak. 1997. Weather-induced changes in moth Olsen A J and F Midtgaard. 1996. Malaise trap collections of thrips from the
activity bias measurement of long-term population dynamics from light islands Haaya and Ostaya in Oslofjorden, South Norway (Thysanoptera,
trap samples. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 83: 329-335. Insecta). Norwegian Journal of Entomology, 43: 63-68.
Hoyt S C and E C Burts. 1974 Integrated control of fruit pests. Annual 2OVRQ'0$FRPSDULVRQRIWKHHIFDF\RIOLWWHUVLIWLQJDQGSLWIDOO
Review of Entomology, 19: 231-252. traps for sampling leaf litter ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in a tropical
Hughes J B, G C Daily and P R Ehrlich. 1998. Use of fruit bait traps wet forest, Costa Rica. Biotropica, 23: 166-172.
for monitoring of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Revista de Olson D M. 1994. The distribution of leaf litter invertebrates along a
Biologa Tropical, 46: 697-704. Neotropical altitudinal gradient. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 10: 129-
Huizen T H P. 1980. Why not use window traps for collecting Coleoptera 150.
DQGRWKHU\LQJLQVHFWV"Entomologische Berichten, 40: 131-132. Paarmann W and N E Stork. 1987. Canopy fogging, a method of collecting
Johnson C G. 1950. A suction trap for small airborne insects which living insects for investigations of life history strategies. Journal of
automatically segregates the catch into successive hourly samples. Annals Natural History, 21: 563-566.
of Applied Biology, 37: 80-91. Peck S B and A E Davies. 1980. Collecting small beetles with large-area
Jonsson E, A Gardarsson and G GSlason. 1986. A new window trap used window traps. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 34: 237-239.
LQWKHDVVHVVPHQWRIWKHLJKWSHULRGVRI&KLURQRPLGDHDQG6LPXOLLGDH Pekar S. 2002. Differential effects of formaldehyde concentration and
(Diptera). Freshwater Biology, 16: 711-719. GHWHUJHQWRQWKHFDWFKLQJHIFLHQF\RIVXUIDFHDFWLYHDUWKURSRGVE\SLWIDOO
Kitching R L, Li D and N E Stork. 2001. Assessing biodiversity sampling traps. Pedobiologia, 46: 539-547.
packages: how similar are arthropod assemblages in different tropical Pyle R, M Bentzien and P Opler. 1981. Insect conservation. Annual Review
UDLQIRUHVWV"Biodiversity and Conservation, 10: 793-813. of Entomology, 26: 233-258.
Leong J N and R Thorp. 1999. Colour coded sampling: the pan trap colour Rainio J and J Niemel. 2003. Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as
preferences of oligolectic and nonoligolectic bees associated with a bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12: 487-506.
vernal pool plant. Ecological Entomology, 24: 329-335. Ricklefs R E. 1975. Seasonal occurrence of night-flying insects on
Liu Y, J C Axmacher, Li L, Wang C and Yu Z. 2007. Ground beetle Barro Colorado Island, Panama Canal Zone. Journal of the New York
(Coleoptera: Carabidae) inventories: A comparison of light and pitfall Entomological Society, 83: 19-32.
trapping. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 97: 577-583. Riedl H, B A Croft and A J Howitt. 1976. Forecasting codling moth
Liu Y, Yu Z, Gu W and J C Axmacher. 2006. Diversity of carabids phenology based on pheromone trap catches and physiological-time
(Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the desalinized agricultural landscape of models. The Canadian Entomologist, 108: 449-460.
Quzhou County, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 113: Roulston T H, S A Smith and A L Brewster. 2007. A comparison of pan
45-50. trap and intensive net sampling techniques for documenting a bee
/XII0/6RPHIHDWXUHVLQXHQFLQJWKHHIFLHQF\RISLWIDOOWUDSV (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) fauna. Journal of the Kansas Entomological
182 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.3 No.2, 2012
Society, 80: 179-181. Townes H. 1972. A light-weight Malaise trap. Entomological News, 83:
Sabu T K and Shiju R T. 2010. Efficacy of pitfall trapping, Winkler and 239-247.
Berlese extraction methods for measuring ground-dwelling arthropods in Turchin P and F J Odendaal. 1996. Measuring the effective sampling area
moist-deciduous forests in the Western Ghats. Journal of Insect Science, of a pheromone trap for monitoring population density of southern pine
10: 1-17. beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environmental Entomology, 25: 582-588.
Shepard M, G R Carner and S G Turnipseed. 1974. A comparison of Walker G P, A R Wallace, R Bush, F H MacDonald and D M Suckling.
three sampling methods for arthropods in soybeans. Environmental 2003. Evaluation of pheromone trapping for prediction of diamondback
Entomology, 3: 227-232. moth infestations in vegetable brassicas. New Zealand Plant Protection,
Siemann E, J Haarstad and D Tilman. 1997. Short-term and long-term 56: 180-184.
effects of burning on oak savanna arthropods. American Midland Weinzierl R, T Henn P G Koehler and C L Tucker. 2006. Insect attractants
Naturalist, 137: 349-361. and traps. IFAS Extension. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida
Southwood R and P A Henderson. 2000. Ecological methods. Hoboken, NJ: Publication.
Wiley-Blackwell. Williams D F. 1973. Sticky traps for sampling populations of Stomoxys
Spence J R and J K Niemel. 1994. Sampling carabid assemblages with calcitrans. Journal of Economic Entomology, 66: 1279-1280.
pitfall traps: the madness and the method. Canadian Entomologist, 126: Winder L, J M Holland, J N Perry, C Woolley and C J Alexander. 2001. The
881-894. use of barrier-connected pitfall trapping for sampling predatory beetles
Steyskal G C. 1981. Bibliography of the Malaise trap. Proceedings of the and spiders. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 98: 249-258.
Entomological Society of Washington, 83: 225229. Yanoviak S P, N M Nadkarni and J C Gering. 2003. Arthropods in epiphytes:
Strickler J D and E D Walker. 1993. Seasonal abundance and species a diversity component that is not effectively sampled by canopy fogging.
diversity of adult Tabanidae (Diptera) at Lake Lansing Park-North, Biodiversity and Conservation, 12: 731-741.
Michigan. Great Lakes Entomologist, 26: 107-112. Yu X D, Luo T H and Zhou H Z. 2006. Distribution of carabid beetles
Taylor L R. 1951. An improved suction trap for insects. Annals of Applied among regenerating and natural forest types in Southwestern China.
Biology, 38: 582-591. Forest Ecology and Management, 231: 169-177.
Thomas A W. 1996. Light-trap catches of moths within and above the
canopy of a northeastern forest. Journal of the Lepidopterists Society, 50:
21-45.
+BO$"9."$)&3
8$